To ask if its fair that inclusivity has excluded my DC from their hobby?

[DImplesandCheese]

TLDR: ND child is causing my DC to quit much loved hobby as ND child's behaviour is ruining it for them.

Full Story: DC (13) attended a hobby/club and has done for years. 2 years ago a new child joined. The child is ND and their particular behaviours include shouting out, not listening, inappropriate use of kit and refusal to fully participate in activities. DC has complained on and off since this child joined that it is spoiling it. I have encouraged DC to be understanding and supportive, I have spoken with the staff at the club to ask if more support for this child can be put in place. Nothing has changed.

Part of the club involves some unsupervised time and this is DC's favourite part of the club. The last two unsupervised sessions have been completely ruined by this child's behaviour, the group have had to call staff for help to sort it out and therefore their final result for the session has been effected. 2 months ago after the last ones of these sessions I spoke with staff and asked why this child doesn't have a 1 to 1 support/parent staying with them as this is hugely effecting everyone else's enjoyment and I was told that my DC is exaggerating and 'fixating' on this child.

DC came home last night as said he's quitting. This child has wrecked the night's activity again. I spoke to the staff and was told that they 'are an inclusive club and they pride themselves in being open to all' and hinted that DC leaving may well be for the best if he's not happy.

I have 2 ND DC, I get the difficulties, I get that they should have access to clubs and activities, I get that allowances need to be made for their behaviour. I am in no way suggesting the child should be kicked out but surely if you have children leaving because of another child then the support in place for that child isn't right?

AIBU to think that more should be done to support this child correctly so DC can continue to enjoy their hobby and that my DC having to leave is not an acceptable situation?

@Sniffle555 Yes, the child is capable of participating in activities with appropriate support. The OP gave the example of the scavenger hunt:
They will refuse to continue the route until staff are called.

The child needs support and they’re not getting it. If the other 13-year-olds are expected to provide the appropriate support, they need to be shown how to do this, they’re children, they don’t know what to do when X refuses to participate. If they try and it doesn’t work, the adults need to step in.

No, that isn’t the point of inclusivity at all. It isn’t to make disabled people behave as though they weren’t disabled as far as possible!

The point in inclusivity is to enable everyone to participate in the way that suits them.

I’m sure you don’t mean it to be, but this really is quite an ableist perspective.

I’ve done hoards of scavenger hunts. Plenty of kids with or without SEN or NT go off the route. They’re kids not robots.

Other posters have made very valid points about conflicting needs. One person’s need for quiet conflicting with another’s need to stim, for example. It absolutely can be challenging to accommodate both.

Being included isn't being "prioritised". Adjustments aren't favourtism

But there aren't any adjustments, that's the whole point. The ND child is being expected to manage at the same level as the NT children, and he can't do it. That's the problem

@Sniffle555 With support, the child does participate in group activities, though. Without support, the activity falls apart. What are the other 13-year-olds supposed to do? Genuine question, I’m not sure.

Thank you, that is the point.

Says who? One child.He’s doing it at his level.

People got crazy butt hurt about an imaginary Knit and Natter group 😟

I hope your DS finds an alternative hobby, OP.

I think that it depends upon whether you have to pay a reasonable amount for your DS hobby or whether it is a charity, run by volunteers. If this is Scouts, then i actually think that you are being very unreasonable. I volunteer at brownies and the commitment is enormous. There is so much planning, so much red tape, forms after forms and risk assessments. It is like a full time job being a guiding or scouting volunteer. So, if my hunch is right, you are highly unreasonable to expect there to be additional volunteers there to assist this child, unless of course you are happy to volunteer to provide that assistance yourself and assuming that the ND child would benefit from the additional help, rather than being able to benefit from a degree of independence.

If you are paying a lot of money (not just subs), then i would take your money elsewhere.

@Sniffle555 It sounds as if the other children are under the impression that these activities have to be completed as a group, and that the rest of them can’t complete them if one child refuses to participate.

It may be as simple as explaining to the children that if X decides not to join in the scavenger hunt, don’t worry about it, you’re still allowed to do it.

Well if the esteemed Rishi or Nigel get their way, we'll be out of the ECHR and that means we we can scrap the Equalities Act, and people can then ban those pesky noisy disabled people from public life.
Thankfully, this looks very unlikely.

Why can’t your NT son occasionally get to go first at anything? It sounds as if you accommodate all of your ND child’s wants and needs above your NT son but expect another person’s ND child to fit in perfectly.
Also, do the group activities have to be done with each person doing an individual bit or could all bits be done by any of the group, which would mean if the ND child didn’t want to, or couldn’t do his bit, someone else could?

@Twototwo15 Yes, I think the children need more guidance.

Haven’t RTFT so I apologise if I’m just repeating. This is ridiculous for the club to use ‘inclusivity’ as an excuse in this way.

If the activities aren’t something the child can/wants to engage with, no amount of ‘inclusion’ will help. If they do want to be there, inclusivity surely means providing the resources required to actually *be included, which by the sound of it means 1to1 support.

Learning to be patient and kind with people who are ND is obviously important, but it’s not your child’s job to act as staff.

The club is at fault here for dismissing your son’s experience and failing to meet the ND child’s needs. It’s much easier to point the finger at your son and ignore any havoc during sessions, much harder to acknowledge your sons experience and monitor the free play time.

Not every activity is centered around just including everyone. No one would try and claim a high level sports team should put the kids in a position where they weren't able to develop as players because of having to work at the level of one child who had some kind of disability, be it something like autism or a physical disability.

Groups like scouts, contrary to what some believe, are not just about having fun together. Especially as kids get older, they are about skill development. Planning, leadership skills, things like planning and executing wilderness trips, there is badge work that is pretty extensive. The stuff the kids do at the lower levels underpins a lot of the later, more independant work.

If this kid is not participating in the activities, it seems like there isn't much he is getting out of it. Maybe he is having fun, but the other kids are not there to provide an opportunity for that one kid to have fun, any more than a field hockey team is there just for one kid to have fun. They are there to play the game, or in this case, be in the activities.

Part of the problem, I think, is the adoption by a lot of organizations of the idea of complete inclusion, without really thinking about what that means with regard to their core activities. Because of the way it's become the be all and end all, with significant moral implications, means leaders in groups like scouts feel they have to accommodate anyone, even when they simply don't have the resources. The ONLY way it's seen as acceptable to demure is if there are significant safety issues, since safety is also now a core value. But ruining the actual activity for the other kids doesn't seem to feature at all. If their leadership activity, camping trip, theatre show, is ruined they just have to suck it up. (I'm not sure why high level sports get a pass on this? But they seem to.)

This kind of problem is ultimately likely to impact negatively on inclusion practices in the end.

That’s kind of the point of the thread though.

Why should we enable one child to participate in the way that suits them at the expense of all other participants?

In my opinion too many people misunderstand exactly what inclusivity means. It is not just letting all children join in and hoping for the best - that is unfair on all parties.
It is providing the right support or scaffolding so all children can both participate and get full enjoyment out of the activity. This support could be many different things but the most obvious would be for this child to have 1:1 support maybe in the form of their parent oar an additional volunteer.

Part of the problem, I think, is the adoption by a lot of organizations of the idea of complete inclusion, without really thinking about what that means with regard to their core activities. Because of the way it's become the be all and end all, with significant moral implications, means leaders in groups like scouts feel they have to accommodate anyone, even when they simply don't have the resources

This. It's become another of those subjects where it's very difficult for anyone to question whether inclusion in an activity is the right thing for the child themselves, never mind whether they can be accommodated safely and without disruption for others.

Even within my specialist field of special education (with a focus on high needs autism) my colleagues and I couldn't always agree on whether including some of our children in some events and activities was right for them, or for the other NT participants/members of the audience.

It seems that we make children put up with all kinds of behaviour in the name of being kind and inclusive and fair which we ourselves would never put up with for so long as adults.

Insisting others put up with obnoxious behaviours on the grounds of neurodiversity is going to create alot less tolerance for ND people in the long run, NT people can't be forced into dealing with unpleasant behaviours ruining their leisure time for long before they get sick of it imo. This attitude of Nina ND can stim as much as she wants and everyone has to put up with it is going to create alot of bad feeling.

Disruptive enough to ruin it for the OP's dc though. Which isn't fair on them, or on other kids similarly affected.

It's not just NT people. One of the great causes of distress for one of my friend's ND children (ASD) is people not following the rules and / or being disruptive. It causes him very great distress to the point of tears and leaving the room (my friend is always there so if he needs to leave, he can). I'm not sure how you balance those two things but it's not just NT people who are disadvantaged by loud and unruly behaviour, often the impact will be huge for ND people who are ND in a different way, with different behaviours.

With so many things, inclusion of some people means exclusion of others.